100 Years of Mexican Land Reform

Law and Business Review of the Americas Volume 16 Number 3 Article 6 2010 Grading a Revolution: 100 Years of Mexican Land Reform William D. Signet Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/lbra Recommended Citation William D. Signet, Grading a Revolution: 100 Years of Mexican Land Reform, 16 LAW & BUS. REV. AM. 481 (2010) https://scholar.smu.edu/lbra/vol16/iss3/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law and Business Review of the Americas by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. GRADING A REVOLUTION: 100 YEARS OF MEXICAN LAND REFORM William D. Signet* ABSTRACT As Mexico celebrates the centennial of its Revolution and the bi-centennial of its Independence, its chief historical objective-the distribution and use of land for economic betterment and social justice-is assessed in this article. Mexico offers a paradox: Almost half of its territory is held by a communal form of agrarian organization called the ejido, and foreigners are expressly limited in the ways they may own land. Yet, for most of the last 100 years the country has been considered an economically attractive and legally secure haven for private investment in real property. Further- more, although the ejido has been a dismal failure in terms of economic production and the betterment of its individual members, the reforms that created it are considered by some to have been successful, and will be cause for celebration this year. This article represents one of the few attempts to present the last 100 years of Mexican land reform from a legal point of view, that is, by a careful and coherent analysis of the legislation that pre- ceded, occurred during, and was enacted after the Mexican Revolution. The author's conclusion is that Mexican land reform can be seen as successful only from a political point of view, in that through artful drafting and the exercise of great political acumen, the leaders who emerged from Mexico's Revolution were able to absorb and redirect the energies of its more radicalfactions, and attain decades of political stability and relative social harmony, albeit it at the cost of institutionalizing rural poverty. IN 2010, Mexico will celebrate the centennial of the two most signifi- cant events in its history. Two hundred years ago,' beneath the night skies of the central plateau, Miguel Hidalgo stepped before his parish church and made a short but effective speech, in which he conveyed his heartfelt sentiment that the gachupin should die along with his 300 years *iD. Columbia Law School; Parker School of Foreign & Comparative Law; adjunct professor, University of Texas Law School (Mexican law); principal, Signet Ramos Abogados, former director general, Land American Title Insurance Company of Mexico; author, Mexican Law Library (West Group 1998) and various articles and other publications on Mexican legal topics; former editor, Mexico Law & Com- merce Report (West Group). 1. September 16, 1810, is officially celebrated as Mexico's Day of Independence. 481 482 LAW AND BUSINESS REVIEW OF THE AMERICAS [Vol. 16 of colonial rule.2 One hundred years ago,3 Francisco Madero, represent- ing his compatriots' impatience with the perennial presidential adminis- trations of an octogenarian Porfirio Diaz,4 initiated a Revolution into which his own presidency would quickly be swallowed. This article assesses the motivation and legacy of the Mexican Revolu- tion in terms of its most important issue, which was the place of land in the everyday life of the average citizen. If results can be measured by raw statistics, the Mexican Revolution led to a fundamental change in the nation's ownership of real property, and even in the legal regime by which property is owned and used. The Revolution ushered in a century which finally saw ownership over half the nation's surface area held by roughly 28,000 communal ejidos (eh-HEE-dos), in whose precincts the typical at- tributes of the free marketplace-the ability to buy, sell, lease, and mort- gage land-were banned. Private ownership over strategic resources, like oil and other hydrocarbons, was constitutionally prohibited. No private person could own more land than closely prescribed limits allowed. Until recently, corporations could own no farmland at all. No one can argue that the Mexican Revolution was not revolutionary. Against these results, on the other hand, can be juxtaposed a strange and often contradictory reality. Mexican elites today seem just fine with their homes in the cities and their hobby farms in the countryside. For foreign real estate investors, in particular, Mexico seems to be run on the same basis as most other capitalist countries. 5 Investors buy, sell, mort- gage, and lease land in the free market for offices, factories, hotels, and shopping centers with a legal security that must be satisfactory-if the results now available are any indication. In the sixteen years in which private investors have been able to bring claims for discriminatory or unfair behavior against the three signatories of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAiFTA), not a single claim against Mexico based upon unfair deprivation of land ownership has even been arbitrated, much less won.6 The two most important restraints on foreign ownership 2. Although ethnically Spanish himself, Hidalgo used the disrespectful reference of gachupin to native-born Spaniards in the famous grito commemorated each year: "My children: A new dispensation comes to us today. Will you receive it? Will you free yourselves? Will you recover the lands stolen three hundred years ago from your forefathers by the hated Spaniards? We must act at once. ...Will you not defend your religion and your rights as true patriots? Long live our Lady of Guadalupe! Death to bad govern- ment! Death to the gachupines."[translation by author]. 3. November 20, 1910, officially marks the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution. 4. Porfirio Diaz was elected president of Mexico from 1876 to 1880, and, beginning in 1884, was reelected in successive terms of office (the last one, 1910, is disputed) until his abdication and exile in 1911 (see discussion infra). 5. "Mexico stands out as a paragon of political stability within contemporary Latin America." Peter H. Smith, Mexico Since 1946: Dynamics of An Authoritarian Re- gime, MI-XICO SINCE INDEPENDENCE- 321 (1991). 6. An authoritative compilation of claims brought against Mexico, that also contains the text of all pleadings, is found in the website of the Mexican Secretaria de la Economia [Secretariat of the Economy]; see Investor-State Dispute Settlement, Secretaria de la Economia, in http://www.economia.gob.mx/swb/en/economiap. 2010] 2010]GRADING A REVOLUTION43 483 of real property-the requirement that the foreigner agree to the "Calvo Clause" and the prohibition against direct ownership of land in the "Re- stricted Zone" (see discussion below)-are largely symbolic. Similarly, the radical changes ushered in by the Revolution have not created a picture of prosperity in the countryside. Since 1940, a year that can be seen as the high watermark in the development of Mexico's "social sector," agricultural production on the ejido, as a share of the nation's total, has consistently fallen.7 From 1960 on, growth fell dangerously be- hind that of the population.8 By 1980, the culture that had first perfected the cultivation of corn was not producing enough corn to feed itself.9 The ejido began to depopulate. By the end of the Twentieth Century, the mean age of the total rural Mexican population was below the age of twenty; the mean age of the ejido population, on the other hand, was fifty-two.' 0 There are reasons for these discrepancies, these "disconnections," be- tween the nominal and the real changes brought about by one hundred years of land reform, and chief among them is that the reforms stare back far beyond the year 1910 both in terms of inspiration and political pur- pose. It is not just that the "land question" dominated the political history of both Mexican centuries. Land reform in the second century of Mexico's existence was consciously perceived as a second chance to es- tablish and implement the failed policies of the first, to "hit the reset but- ton," so to speak, on all the pertinent legislation of the pre-Revolutionary period. In so doing, the legislation that would shape land tenure and use in the Twentieth Century would owe more to the quaint notions of a by- gone era than the realities of the modern world. With all the complexities and challenges of 20th century life-the shift of economic activity to indus- trial and technological processes, the migration to the cities, the ascent of the financial industry, the inter-connectedness of the world economy- the Revolutionaries' vision of the future could still be reduced to the phrase-to borrow from the American vernacular-"forty acres and a mule"' -only the Mexican peon received far less than forty acres, and was never given a mule. As a result, a policy designed to provide millions solucion-controversias-inversionista (last visited July 14, 2010). According to the author's analysis, only four claims have involved the ownership of real property: Billy Joe Adams et al. (2000), Lomas de Santa Fe (2001), Calmark Commercial Development, Inc. (2002), and Robert J. Frank (2002), none of which have pro- ceeded to arbitration. 7. By 1960, fifty percent of agricultural farmland accounted for four percent of total agricultural output, see Auge y Crisis Agropecuario, Secretariat of Agrarian Re- form, http://207.249.24.51 /sraweb/conoce-la-sra/historia/auge-y-crisis-agropecuaria/ (last visited July 11, 2010).

Load more